I've been watching quite some Jordan Peterson material, and I must say, the regressive leftists are no match against him in a debate. All the talking points of this interviewer get shot down, and she repeatedly puts words into his mouth, it was like watching a pigeon attempt a chess game against Spassky.

I've been watching quite some Jordan Peterson material, and I must say, the regressive leftists are no match against him in a debate. All the talking points of this interviewer get shot down, and she repeatedly puts words into his mouth, it was like watching a pigeon attempt a chess game against Spassky.

That is very interesting, since it is usually the other way around... I bet you watch him on Fox.

I enjoy watching Jordan Peterson, probably because we are both counselors. The interviewer was certainly trying her best to fit her words in his mouth. I'm not sure whether what he wrote made her so defensive she didn't really understand his points or whether she did understand and was putting words in his mouth as a tactic. Perhaps a bit of both.

I enjoy watching Jordan Peterson, probably because we are both counselors. The interviewer was certainly trying her best to fit her words in his mouth. I'm not sure whether what he wrote made her so defensive she didn't really understand his points or whether she did understand and was putting words in his mouth as a tactic. Perhaps a bit of both.

He became controversial last year, because he doesn't consider Justin Trudeau to be the messiah, and that there is no reason, to apply criminal law, to how you use personal pronouns around overly triggered young people. In Canada, they want a dictatorship by trannies. A litmus test of hysterical proportions.

I would be happy to be polite enough to use the pronoun of your choice, in referring to you in person (I had no problem adapting to MS as opposed to MISS) ... but if you want to put me in jail over this, then I will drive an Abrams tank thru your front door ;-)

Later last year, he became controversial, because as a secular person, he is trying to make sense of the Bible as a psychology tool. Atheists don't like that. And Abrahamics are mad because he is doing it wrong (relative to their theology).

He can be hard to listen to, because he self-digresses, a lot like I do. I am enjoying the commentary on his Bible psychology series, being done by a Christian pastor, who is very open minded. Sometimes second hand input is better.

Peterson went on Sam Harris' podcast and it was honestly the worst podcast I've ever heard, but Harris was mostly to blame.

Peterson focuses on archetypes, narratives and meaning. Perhaps some atheists don't like he includes Biblical narratives but I would find it odd if he avoided them. I certainly don't agree with everything he says but he has interesting ideas and knows how to communicate with confidence.

I've been watching quite some Jordan Peterson material, and I must say, the regressive leftists are no match against him in a debate. All the talking points of this interviewer get shot down, and she repeatedly puts words into his mouth, it was like watching a pigeon attempt a chess game against Spassky.

I like that phrase, "regressive Leftists." And which point of American history are we regressing too, exactly...?

Logged

"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,Born under one law, to another bound;Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,Created sick, commanded to be sound."--Fulke Greville

I like that phrase, "regressive Leftists." And which point of American history are we regressing too, exactly...?

As I understand it, "regressive left" is used as a pejorative to Leftists whose values are authoritarian and collectivist rather than libertarian and individualistic. I don't think regressive points to a period in history but was initially coined as a criticism of people on the left who appear to be cultural relativists and support Muslims-- the argument being they claim to be "progressive" but are supporting the "regressive" ideology of Islam which is associated with the oppression of women and LGBT people, blasphemy laws and such. The term has since been expanded to include people who are generally considered socialists, third-wave feminists, and social justice activists.

As I understand it, "regressive left" is used as a pejorative to Leftists whose values are authoritarian and collectivist rather than libertarian and individualistic. I don't think regressive points to a period in history but was initially coined as a criticism of people on the left who appear to be cultural relativists and support Muslims-- the argument being they claim to be "progressive" but are supporting the "regressive" ideology of Islam which is associated with the oppression of women and LGBT people, blasphemy laws and such. The term has since been expanded to include people who are generally considered socialists, third-wave feminists, and social justice activists.

If I am wrong about this I welcome correction.

The word "regressive" is used to describe returning to an earlier or less advanced state. Whether support of Muslims is beneficial or not, it's not regressive unless by offering them support one is returning to an earlier state of being. It seems to me the phrase "regressive Left" is just the Right parroting the insults that are thrown their way. They, who actively cheer "make America great again," who are regressive by their own admission, turn around and say, "We're not regressive! You are!" It's like when Trump was asked about the Alt-Right shortly after a white supremacist ran over and killed a woman who was counter-protesting Nazis, and he said, "What about the Alt-Left?" The fuck is an Alt-Left?

I think I get what hes pushing: psychological mindsets and way of doing things.

Political activists aren't interested in the real reason why people do things ... that doesn't help them establish claims on political power. Psychology, done right, empirically ... not ideologically (aka Lysenkoism) is what it is. Doesn't matter how people "feel" about it. Politics is all about the external manipulation of the internal "feels" of others, aka getting them to intuitively agree with you, not cognitively agree with you.

I like that phrase, "regressive Leftists." And which point of American history are we regressing too, exactly...?

The Left aren't regressing to American history, but to French and Russian history. We are to be the playthings of Robespierre and Lenin. Those two men among others don't represent a historical period as much as a political abortion. They are no more representative than Nero was of good old Roman values.

The word "regressive" is used to describe returning to an earlier or less advanced state. Whether support of Muslims is beneficial or not, it's not regressive unless by offering them support one is returning to an earlier state of being. It seems to me the phrase "regressive Left" is just the Right parroting the insults that are thrown their way. They, who actively cheer "make America great again," who are regressive by their own admission, turn around and say, "We're not regressive! You are!" It's like when Trump was asked about the Alt-Right shortly after a white supremacist ran over and killed a woman who was counter-protesting Nazis, and he said, "What about the Alt-Left?" The fuck is an Alt-Left?

I am less polite. A great many people, politically and socially, are sociopaths. Their political or social opinions aren't worth anything at all. They are a threat to society, that should be eliminated, thru medical assistance. Dr Peterson is Canadian, he didn't vote for Trump. A psychiatrist in particular, is a tool for the medical resolution of our collective madness.

There are perhaps individualist Leftists ... but they aren't the norm, any more than individualist Right is a norm. Both extremes are collectivist and completely ideological aka ahistorical. Reasonable discourse happens only in the center, not on the fringes. The current individualist Right are only a fringe of a fringe ... most Libertarians are corporatists, not proprietorship advocates. There were anarcho-syndicalists in France 100 years ago ... in the US they were IWW. But then the union (aka soviet) serves as the collective. Any labor analysis shows that individual workers as individuals, have no bargaining power. So some form of collectivism is hard to avoid and thus ... revolt and war are hard to avoid, because we will never ever see ourselves as a part of one big happy group ... in spite of the ravings of Alexander the Great.

So I don't think there is a progressive Left, so the term regressive Left is moot. The Left are raving anti-social maniacs. The Right are raving social maniacs. They share one word ... mania. Centered people are not maniacs. And we recognize both the advantages and disadvantages of society.

"Tell Pilate to release the files!!!" - Bill Hicks"I have an open mind, but not so open that my brains will fall out" -James Randi"One who truly hates himself cannot love, he cannot place his trust in another." - NGE

It's a term that refers to the more extreme brand of left. Not the general left. I am a part of the left and even I can understand that there is a massive problem with the regressive left.

True. I don't deny that there's a subset of the Left that is more harmful than good, but perhaps there's a more accurate word that could be used to describe them. It's kind of like the word "homophobia" to me. Like, I don't see right wingers jumping up on chairs and screaming like little girls at the sight of a gay man. The word just doesn't make sense to me.

Logged

"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,Born under one law, to another bound;Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,Created sick, commanded to be sound."--Fulke Greville